Simon Wyss

Up to this day there has not ever been photochemical timing. That would imply exposure of printing stock through a selected single frame of the negative at one of 50 steps for each printing light colour, red-green-blue. Such strips would then be processed and projected by an intensely cooled strip projector. I am on the way to offer this in black and white with the 50-step scale on 35-mm and 16-mm stock. What you mean has to do with the latest generations of colour film stock and the chemistry. In conjunction with Digital Intermediates you have a different exposure of the respective stock from what happens when you go camera neg - interpos - interneg -positive. New internegative stocks are in use for the purpose of DI which behave unlike traditional internegatives. Grading/timing assessments ever since 1957 have been simulations on CRT first and other monitors later. Before introduction of the Hazeltine Analyzer 50 years ago graders almost always judged by the naked eye. Subtractive colour correction gelatine filters were used. They still can be used. But find an experienced grader and an old printing machine ! Eastman-Kodak recently brought out a new series of Wratten gelatine filters. It could be an adventure . . .

Bolex-Paillard B 8 I have overhauled in number. Do have it entirely cleaned and freshly lubricated by a specialist. A trained mechanic needs two to three hours for the job and will take $ 200. Good luck with your spring driven camera !

I mean it in the sense that there is an overall concept to which lighting adapts as well as everything else. The concept of an interview is very simple. Two people, in most cases, talk with each other (in most cases, but again I'm ironic). There is no further meaning around. (Now I'm serious.) With fiction the actors are manipulated. Everything can be manipulated. I'd never speak of dumb and smart face sides and the like in general terms. That would be mere technical dexterity. No, a technician contributes even more profoundly to the concept of a production than a prop manager. The cinematographer is probably the most important technician.

Why should 35 mm be a dream ? With some discipline you'll get far. Not so expensive cameras: Bell & Howell Eyemo, Arriflex II, DeVry "Lunch Box", Konvas (russian). You find less problems in having something printed than with 16-mm film. Finally you can take your 35-mm pictures to every cinema on the globe. Give the projectionist something more than a coffee, maybe a tenner, and study the job, big.

You are wonderfully old-fashioned = solid. Wish you all the best with your coding apparatus. I plan to move to Hollywood with my lab.

Yes, there is Gigabitfilm 40 in 16 mm, perforated 0.3" along one edge, overall dry thickness 0.068 mm. There is no signature on the film whatsoever. You can have 100, 200, 400 and 800 ft. portions. 100' cost CHF 59 (some 76 AUD / 51 USD / 40 EUR), 200' the double, and so on. Unfortunately, I cannot process at the moment. If you want to develop yourself, you can purchase the chemistry from Mr. Ludwig of Gigabitfilm.

No, I'm not. In an interview I shouldn't give a person such an intense significance. The spoken word is most important there. The original question comes from the fictitional standpoint where a face, a CU, rather bares a single message like: FEAR or ANGER or DISAPPOINTMENT or CARE, and so on. Lighting a movie is setting the coherence.

At Gigabitfilm of Germany, www.gigabitfilm.de

Clear case. The Eclair ACL has a 175 degrees focal plane shutter. You get interference with the 60 Hertz line lights at 75 fps: 175/360 = 0.486111; exposure time at 75 fps = 0.006481 s. Relation to 0.01666 s (1/60) = 29.1666 which is that ugly bit off the matching 30. To shoot in 60-Hz line light at 25, 50 or 75 fps you need 172.8 degrees shutter opening angle.

Same recommendation from me, employ 7222 on the whole. You are right, grain cuts distract the public. If the chemical character remains the same, your spectators forget about it within two minutes. Even less

Malik and everybody: For me light opens space(s). In the dark (of the cinema, finally) I feel closed in. That is probably the main theme with photography and cinematography. So, the key light might give the character her/his forward space or room to look in, to move, to talk. It's the sun. All life, all action on earth directs towards the sun, our key light, if you want. In artificial lighting we only imitate this primordial fact. The rest is reflections, bounce light, filling in, softening or spicing up for contrast. When you revert the natural relation between light and life, let me say, you give the scene a night twist. We humans master the fire and use it also in the night. I think we should keep this in mind for our pictorial light-dark concept. Of course, I'm speaking of the presented scenery in cinema and on television/video set, not of the light situation itself which is artificial: projection or back-lit displays.

If I may add something - there's a little thinking error (do smile about my English). A lens's resolution is maximum with the iris full open. In theory the resolving power increases with the opening. To compute circles of confusion from numbers of line pairs per given length in the image plane has no other value than changing units. Let's not forget that the concept of an objective with an iris diaphragm is already a compromise. A lens manufacturer gives us a product with a, say, 1:1.9 ratio. The lens will overall perform best at, say, 1:5.6 (geometric). In a certain sense it is silly to use a speedy lens only to stop it down for nice pictures when smaller diameters would behave more favourably. We could as well put on a 1:4 objective and use it less closed. I have seen pictures of 1:2.8 triplets that outdid 1:1.4 six-element systems only because of the fact that smaller diameter elements can be produced in bigger numbers and then selected. They assemble better single lenses to systems at comparable prices. Unfortunately, this practice is gone. Today's lenses are too complicated, too heavy and too expensive. Just this before I close: There is an 1930 Hugo Meyer Euryplan in my hand, three elements cemented into one block for the front and the rear part of the system. I have never seen finer detail than out of that non-coated old-timer. It opens 1:6.3. I admit, this is for stills, not movies. If you want to capture what your lens projects try once Gigabitfilm. It has double the resolving power of the best lenses, so the image character is solely defined by the lens.

Well, no, I have no Beaulieu R 16 at hand but am sure you have the common sense to see the right loop sizes. If you don't know this little thing: you can set the film on the sprocket rollers by simply pushing it down the slot while shortly running the mechanism. Another ten times and you are a practitioner. :P

Perhaps an Englishman . . . -_-

MADE IN WESTERN GERMANY is on every Bolex 16 Pro. I saw that 10-minute promo last year in Bern, Switzerland, at Lichtspiel, an archive. The commentary was true german German, not swiss German. It is obvious from the coax mag, something new to Bolex and Arri. It is obvious from the standpoint of silencing a camera. That was never a subject with Bolex but with Arnold & Richter. Bolex returned to their noisy H models, Arri clearly went in the direction of producing noiseless cameras. A former employee of Bolex (1968 to 1970) told me so. The gap between the H design and this Pro construction is so wide that Arri can be read behind the test balloon. Let's not forget that Arri was under pressure since the release of the Eclair NPR in 1960. They didn't have what the French had. Still the French are pacemakers to some extent when you look at Aäton Penelope. Theirs is the shoulder camera. Bolex-Paillard simply would not have the capital and the brains for such a development. The second point is the reason for their bankruptcy in 1969. They sent people to Ismaning, north-east of München. Arri had people at "Bolex Ismaning". This had to do with the Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft then.

As we already made out hereabout: skip printing/stretch printing. Step printing designates a basic method like continuous printing.

According to the old agreement of 1907 you have the right on exactly 1600 frames with the nominal 100-ft. portion (4000 frames in 16 mm). The lab people will have to respect this. It's very helpful when there is a first frame and a last frame in the row after processing. It can be so simple.

Why not Double-Super-8 ? I have a small russian Zenit for that format. There were not so many cameras around: Pathé WEBO DS8, Eastern Germany made one or two (Pentacon), there is the Canon Scoopic DS8 and Arri had a tiny number of Arriflex 16 built in DS8, I think 15 pieces all in all. Rudolf Muster in Selzach, Switzerland, sells converted Bolex cameras.

The Bolex-Paillard 16 Pro was developed and made by Arnold & Richter as forerunner to the Arriflex 35 BL. Also the 1966 Bolex 16 Pro promo reel was made in Germany. It's a bit like the 1969 Saturn-V rocket that went back to the Nazi V-2 and never left earth.

Friend, that is not dust, those are small chips chopped off the film by the claw. To me it is obvious that you did not set the film loops properly. Judging from the picture you probably have forgotten to bring the film onto the lower roller, it run directly to the take-up spool, the lower roller (upper und lower film roller have 6 teeth) looks dustless. Or the lower loop was too small so that the lower roller pulled the film away before the claw reentered. Then, the perforation holes were out of place . . .

I believe Mark means that perhaps your camera exposed for 24 fps but run at 18. That'd be another 33 percent more light. If I can give you advice: Forget Super-8, switch to Double-8. There you have really fine cameras, solid and reliable, with interchangeable lenses. I can offer you - for instance - Bolex-Paillard H 8 Reflex (I have three of them), an Agfa Movex Reflex that pulls through 2000 frames on one wind, or if you want one of the Bolex-Paillard pocket cameras like B 8 (two-lens turret). Or - the very compact 16-mm film camera of Eumig. Or - you start with a simple Bolex-Paillard H 16, bodies are available for £ 200. Double-Eight raw stock: Fomapan R(eversal) 100, Ektachrome 64 T(ungsten), and more.

It's always ok.

Please read this topic: Cine Equipment Classifieds>New Camera AONDA. I don't have the camera yet. That's why I name the price beforehand. Look, this is so fundamentally new and different from what we use now that I will only disclose it to someone who is putting down half the price. I have offered it to Photo-Sonics, Aäton, Jannard and others. I'm in a hole like every pioneer, and I have learnt about the patent issue, believe me. Of course, one is curious about what possibly can be invented in film movements, I understand that all too well. It gives me sleepless nights time and again, and the Imax people never answered. They ought to be most curious because we could reduce the film's mass to one third. You know how much an Imax print weighs, don't you ? However, they seem to be wanting to switch to pixels.

I have in fact a 35-mm motion picture film camera design which incorporates a 24 to 1 cycle ratio. This means that the 360 degrees of each cycle are divided into 14.4 degrees film advancement and 345.6 degrees film exposure. I have announced it in this forum under Classifieds: New Camera AONDA. The camera costs 180'000 Euro.

In the beginning (1923) all 16-mm raw stock was sold with a perforated two-colour paper head leader, black on the outside and red on the inside. This was discontinued in the 1930s. Since then you have an additional length for threading and as protection against light at the end. Verne and Sylvia Carlson have published collected data on these lengths. They state: "Agfa-Gevaert 16mm daylight spools contain approximately 108 ft. Darkroom loads contain approximately 10 ft. additional footage for threadup." "Eastman-Kodak 16mm spools contain approximately 109 ft. Darkroom loads contain approximately 10 ft. additional film for threadup." "Fuji 16mm daylight spools contain approximately 112 ft. Darkroom loads contain approximately 13 ft. additional footage for threadup." "Ilford 16mm daylight spools contain approximately 115 ft. Darkroom loads contain approximately 15 ft. additional film for threadup." (Professional Cameraman's Handbook, Amphoto, New York NY, 1970) I have measured Fomapan R 100, 16mm darkroom loads: 406 1/2 ft.